"OldTrucksCo" <OldTrucksCo@groove.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns94E28DF906053OldTrucksCogroovenet@194.179. 3.156...[color=blue]
> Hello friends
>
> We have this website
www.ramonlapayese.com published on the Net.
>
> It does have a lot of javascript in it, starting from the random image
> displaying in its home page, and continuing with the OverLib file which
> "downloads" first time you open the website.
>
> Some database structure would be needed, although the entire site is[/color]
solved[color=blue]
> with javascript calls, in order to open wider pictures.
>
> Do you think is it kinda some "abuse" on the visitors' browsers? We know
> that this website won't work at all with "javascript features" disabled by
> the user , but do you think this config is setup on default?[/color]
It depends what you means with "abuse"... Actually I do not see reasons for
lots of your JS trickery... having to wait for the bibliography to scroll up
is more annoying than exciting. The slide show gives an error, and a
thumbnail overview would for sure be more useful and more pretty to look at.
I like the idea of showing another picture every time the home page is
called, but as you use CGI anyway you could better do this on the server
side.
The only JS thing that I think is a usability improve on your site is the
opening of small windows for the big picture display. You can do that
"non-javascript friendly" by using that syntax for your images:
<a href="picturefile.html" onClick="pop3(); return false">xxx</a>
So if JS is disabled the picture is just displayed in the normal browser
window; if it is enabled the href is deactivated by "return false" and the
popup is shown.
[color=blue]
> We think only "advanced" user would disable javascript (??)[/color]
I feel quite advanced but have not disabled it, as I think it can be used
for nice features. Just make your site useable without it, too.
HTH
Markus
